nepa has imposed similar burdens and costs. signed into law in 1970, it was intended to account for the environmental consequences of proposed federal actions through projects, but over the last 50 years, it has substantially deviated from its original purpose, morphing into a complex bureaucratic labyrinth, stalling projects through frivolous lawsuits and bureaucratic delays and dramatically increasing the costs and timeline of their completion. sometimes, mr. president, this law stretches projects that should take a couple years to complete into decades. at the very least, we ought to reform these costly, ineffective regulations and do so drastically so that federal infrastructure can be completed better and faster, which is exactly what i proposed in the amendment i put before this body yesterday. but this bill in its current form is ultimately not good for utahans, and it's not good for the american people. dragging more federal money into infrastructure unfortunately means we'll pay more to build less. we will be paying mo

it goes through and it takes lessons learned from nepa. you heard secretary chao under the previous administration talk about how now environmental reviews for infrastructure projects on average takes seven years, seven years. mr. burgess, i've been involved in projects where we've been in the nepa process nearly two decades. when you have urgent projects like your bridge -- or another example. hurricane katrina, we built the levies. we did -- levees. we did the nepa process. waived things. you know what, environmental groups were onboard. you know what, i would argue we did more accurate environmental mitigation than under the regular process. we saved time. we saved money. most importantly, we delivered the project that the americans needed, deserved, are and were waiting for. this bill is a missed opportunity that takes lessons learned and how these laws have been trashed and heaped on them that had nothing to do with the environment. and it resulted in us spending years and often spending more dollars on preconstruction activities than

it provides or expands categorical exclusion from nepa. it also permits authorized -- it also permanently authorizes the federal permitting improvement steering council. unlike these provisions which were the product of committee deliberation and compromise, the amendment that our friend from utah has offered would significantly alter the process for federal environmental review without any committee deliberations on such major changes. these sweeping changes are inappropriate and unwarrant, and i urge our colleagues to join me in voting no. i yield. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, it is important to remember these are the exact same standards that would apply. we do this all the time in other areas. federal regulatory agencies on a continual basis with the blessing of congress are given authority to carry out a federal program. in fact, we already do this with nepa in the context of the federal highway administration. this works. states are competent. it is

in endless delays brought by nepa and new nepa-related issues. and it results in lower labor costs, the senate has a choice today, madam president. you can choose to pay less and build more. you can offer americans a tax cut, a tax cut that will affect poor and middle-class americans most acutely, most immediately, more most directly and it will also simultaneously provide long-term solvency to the highway trust fund and lower the costs of our nation's infrastructure projects. allatively, if you don't want to vote for it, you can continue to saddle the american people with more debt, more insolvency and more taxes or you can continue the current practice of allowing for needless, pointless delays in our infrastructure projects that really harm americans. look at the end of the day we just want more of our tax dollars funding steel and concrete to go into the downso -- ground so america's moms and dads can spend more time with their families. the choice seems very clear to me. i urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment to build more and p

nepa has imposed similar burdens and costs. signed into law in 1970, it was intended to account for the environmental consequences of proposed federal actions through projects, but over the last 50 years, it has substantially deviated from its original purpose, morphing into a complex bureaucratic labyrinth, stalling projects through frivolous lawsuits and bureaucratic delays and dramatically increasing the costs and timeline of their completion. sometimes, mr. president, this law stretches projects that should take a couple years to complete into decades. at the very least, we ought to reform these costly, ineffective regulations and do so drastically so that federal infrastructure can be completed better and faster, which is exactly what i proposed in the amendment i put before this body yesterday. but this bill in its current form is ultimately not good for utahans, and it's not good for the american people. dragging more federal money into infrastructure unfortunately means we'll pay more to build less. we will be paying mo